Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive269
Heptor
[edit]RGloucester is topic banned from EE broadly construed — user's own request! El_C 20:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
|
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Heptor[edit]
Heptor has long pattern of edits intended to whitewash Russia's involvement in the Ukrainian crisis. A notable recent edit was his creation of the "2014 Ukrainian coup d'etat" redirect. In this most recent dispute, Heptor has repeatedly attempted to remove sourced information about Russia's involvement in the war in Donbass from the article, which I have tried to revert. I even added many additional sources to try and placate Heptor, but to no avail. Heptor has continually ignored the consensus found in the RM at Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War, and has attempted to overturn it to no avail. This dispute led to the 9 July implementation of a 'consensus required' restriction under ARBEE by Ymblanter. As shown above, Heptor has shown no hesitation to violate the restriction, and continues to remove sourced content, or otherwise twist it in his favour. Discussion on the talk page has, unfortunately, been nothing more than a sparring match between him and myself. Ukrainian-crisis related articles have become a backwater, with few watchers...a place POV pushers and sockpuppets roam free. Attempts to provide sources, with page numbers, do not convince Heptor to stop...and he continues to cherrypick lines that he thinks supports broad conclusions about the 'indigenous' nature of the war, when they don't do any such thing, and otherwise introduce a WP:FALSEBALANCE between Russian claims and the scholarly consensus. I admit that I haven't been very civil in the relevant discourse, and if you want to toss me out the window or otherwise execute me publicly, feel free to do so. My behaviour is basically the result of having worked in this topic area since the outbreak of the relevant unrest, and being subject to a constant stream of sockpuppet attacks, PoV pushing, &c., on both sides. That's not an excuse, but I know bad faith when I see it. I recently discovered a whole sock farm in the topic area (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dolyn), that seemed to have an anti-Russian angle, and reported it...! If that doesn't indicate my neutrality, I suppose nothing will. But, I digress. Please, I beg of you, do something about this Heptor...and if you want, feel free to sanction me. All I care about is the integrity of the encylopaedia, and nothing more. RGloucester — ☎ 17:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Heptor[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Heptor[edit]Regarding the diff[edit]The phrasing in question, "The War in Donbass is [a] part of the broader Russo-Ukrainian War", was introduced on July 1st without establishing consensus. There is no consensus to mention the page move on Talk:Russo-Ukrainian_War#Requested_move_9_June_2020 in the first sentence in the lead in War in Donbass. In addition, the consensus to move "Russian military intervention in Ukraine (2014–present) → Russo-Ukrainian War" is at best shaky. Three editors (me and two others) have criticized it as wrong and tendentious, so perhaps the MR was closed too early. I'm not going to wikilawyer, but it was RGloucester who violated the "consensus required" restriction with this edit, as he reintroduced this phrasing without establishing consensus. Heptor (talk) 18:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC) Other accounts[edit]With minor and unrelated exceptions, I do not edit Wikipedia with other user names then the one I sign presently. Uncivil tone[edit]Indeed, RGloucester had shown a thorough disregard for civility throughout this discourse. My first interaction with him was on February 22nd, when he reverted several hours of my edits with the summary "What a mess you've made...a load of WP:POV and coatrack rubbish". He showed no interest in participating in the discussion when I pinged him on the talk page of the article (section link) on February 25. His very first comment on the talk page (setion link) was "Your edits have been entirely unacceptable, and I've reverted them", quickly followed up by "Past engagement with you has made clear that constructive discussion is impossible". Repeated requests for citations for his ipsi dixit statements on the talk page were met with "I really have no energy to stoop to your level," and a liberal use of the exclamation mark. When he raises this RfE and attempts to present himself as a victim, saying that "if you want to toss me out the window or otherwise execute me publicly, feel free to do so [...] not an excuse, but", I do not see that he in any way justified or apologized for his behavior. Summary[edit]The diff presented by RGloucester is not a violation of the "Consensus Required" restriction, and please do something about his lack of WP:CIVILITY and obviously WP:AGF. Heptor (talk) 18:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Ymblanter[edit]Just to comment that my involvement in this accident started wheh Heptor asked me to have a look at the article talk page [1]. I had a look, saw that it was previously actively edited by a sockfarm, and applied extended confirmed protection under arbitration enforcement. Then, following JzG, I thought it was useful to add a "consensus required" sanction. I also advised both usewrs to discuss the issue at the talk page. I never added the article to the watchlist (because, tbh, I am fed up by tendentious editing from both sides of the conflict - in general, not specifically applying it to this accident). Today, RGloucester asked me whether I am going to apply sanctions to Heptor for violation of the arbitration enforcement sanction I applied. I suggested them to go here. Whereas I do not know who is right and who is wrong here (and I am not currently willing to look at it, for a number of reasons), this episode is localized as a long talk page discussion between two users with two well articulated positions, so it should be straightforward for any administrator to have a look.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:08, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Heptor[edit]
|
YuukiHirohiko
[edit]| Closing as stale and without an action --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:16, 16 July 2020 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning YuukiHirohiko[edit]
He is aware of what constitutes "vandalism" per this message written by him so I am confident that his reference to my edits as vandalism was deliberate. A report on WP:ANEW against this user with regards to edit warring on 2020 China–India skirmishes is still located on the noticeboard (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit warring#User:YuukiHirohiko reported by User:MarkH21 (Result: ))Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 10:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Discussion concerning YuukiHirohiko[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by YuukiHirohiko[edit]Logically speaking a page would use as many sources as possible. I have read the Japanese, Chinese wiki pages of the same incident. Both voices are heard, Indian figures and Chinese sources are given on all other language pages respectively. Attempts to do the same on the English site were either reverted without reasoning or deleted on the claim of "using communist mouthpiece". I have not removed the Indian scholarly sources stated in the talk section nor have I moved it. It remains in its original section and I just added my sources. It's more than unusual to use Indian government sources as an official casualty figure of the standing article, more unusual that the objection that I face of doing the same thing for the Chinese side. Indian government statements are well known to be inaccurate and sometimes self contradictory.[1][2][3] So proclaimed "scholarly sources" in the article, backing up Indian government claims, are all written by one person, a professor at an Indian university, which according to the talk section sourced his death figures from "Bidanda Chengappa, working for an Indian think tank". I'd like to question the NPOV of this scholarly source. And "On Wikipedia, vandalism is editing the project in a malicious manner that is intentionally disruptive. Vandalism includes any addition, removal, or modification that is humorous, nonsensical, a hoax, or otherwise degrading." I see you removing my edits as vandalism as I was given 0 prior warning, 0 indication. You didn't show positive willingness to discuss this, I laid out my logic in my talk page regarding how China still has Cho La in its LAC despite the article stating the opposite, you didn't reply or rebut with solid evidence. YuukiHirohiko (talk) 10:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC) References
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning YuukiHirohiko[edit]
|
Erik-the-red
[edit]| Please try Dispute Resolution such as an RfC to solve this dispute --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:18, 16 July 2020 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Erik-the-red[edit]
(350 words) In February this year, I got interested in writing a page on the Dhola Post, an Indian Army post set up in 1962 near the China border, which turns out to be an important topic in the Sino-Indian border dispute. Having found a two-line stub called Dhola, Tibet, which was apparently a reference to this very post, I retitled it to Dhola Post and started expanding it. On 17 June, Erik-the-red came by that page and started bitterly complaining that I had modified the old page, this post being an example. When I pointed out that expanding stubs is normal day-to-day activity, his reponse was " The user immediately came over to the new page and started modifying it too. Between the two pages, they made 6 reverts in 24 hours, as documented in this ANEW report. The admins did not sanction the editor. So I set it aside for a while to let things cool. During the debates, the user started calling me " Returning to the page now, after a month's gap, I find the same WP:BATTLEGROUND editing from the user. No appreciation of WP:V or WP:NPOV, not even WP:COPYVIO, but plenty of pomposity, snide remarks, and blatant personal attacks. Sino-Indian border disputes are filled with plenty of subtleties and complications. Without a good faith effort to resolve the disputes, it is practically impossible to get anywhere.
Discussion concerning Erik-the-red[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Erik-the-red[edit]I would like to respond to Kautilya3's comments. Because of the 500 word limit, I cannot respond to all the claims, so I will show that Kautilya3's first and last claims do not accurately describe the events and use quotes taken out-of-context. Kautilya3 claim:
My response: I created the first section on the talk page and wrote the following:
I do not see how any reasonable person could construe the above statements to be "bitterly complaining that [Kautilya3] had modified the old page" as claimed by Kautilya3. Kautilya3 claim:
My response: This claim by Kautilya3 is easily shown to be false by examining the link he/she provided. The context of my words were:
That is, in context, I did not mention Tibet at all. Kautilya3 has thus taken two of my words completely out of context to fit a story implying that I am motivated by nationalistic bias. I hope that my preceding reply has demonstrated that Kautilya3
and therefore that Kautilya3 has not discussed with me in good faith.Erik-the-red (talk) 12:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC) Posted for Erik-the-red who is currently blocked. El_C 12:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Erik-the-red[edit]
|
Italawar
[edit]| Italawar indefinitely blocked (as a normal admin action) by Bishonen.--regentspark (comment) 19:08, 17 July 2020 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Italawar[edit]
No previous sanctions, but a lengthy list of warnings on their talk page.
I have only linked the most egregious examples; their recent editing history with respect to political articles has nothing positive in it. My attempt to discuss some of these edits ([15]) did not go well. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Italawar[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Italawar[edit]Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Italawar[edit]
|
JzG
[edit]| JzG has self-reverted. Report withdrawn by filer. El_C 22:52, 17 July 2020 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning JzG[edit]
There must be some irony here. JzG himself requested this restriction be imposed on the article, and then violates it...perhaps this proves that such restrictions do not work. The administrator who imposed it refuses to have anything to do with it. Are we going to actually enforce this, or just forget about it? RGloucester — ☎ 17:23, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Discussion concerning JzG[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by JzG[edit]It was nice of RGloucester to raise this through a polite note on my talk page reminding me of the restriction, since Twinkle doesn't show the edit notice. Oh, wait, he didn't do that. I self-reverted. I suggest a trout for RGloucester for needless escalation. Guy (help!) 17:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC) Statement by Levivich[edit]WP:Dispute resolution's section WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE says Statement by PackMecEng[edit]Seems like a weird bastard of a restriction. Most concensus required restrictions that I remember go like Statement by Aquillion[edit]I was under the impression that the Consensus Required restriction was being phased out due to the way it leads to stonewalling. On Donald Trump, for instance (probably the highest-profile and most controversial article where it was used) it was replaced with a 24-hour BRD cycle restriction stating Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning JzG[edit]
|
Nocturnalnow
[edit]| Indefinitely blocked by Guerillero, with the first year as an arbitration enforcement action and the remainder as a standard administrative action. — Newslinger talk 20:15, 18 July 2020 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Nocturnalnow[edit]
Nocturnalnow is topic banned from American Politics after 1932
Since the January ANI discussion, Nocturnalnow has made no edits to any namespace but user talk, almost all of them to User talk:Jimbo Wales, and almost all of them to discuss current events in the USA (BLM protests and the like). Many of these edits clearly skirt or breach the topic ban. And these are not occasional outbursts, but the only edits they make to enwiki anymore... Fram (talk) 15:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Nocturnalnow[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Nocturnalnow[edit]Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Nocturnalnow[edit]
|
Siddsg
[edit]| Siddsg is topic banned from all pages and discussions relating to pseudoscience (and that includes Ayurveda) indefinitely. They may appeal the topic ban after no less than six months.--RegentsPark (comment) 18:42, 21 July 2020 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Siddsg[edit]
Discussion concerning Siddsg[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Siddsg[edit]@Bishonen: I thought of pointing out to RexxS about his involvement in the subject as an involved editor and decided I will reply about the rest on article's talk page once I am back because it belonged there. Now that he didn't wait and instead went ahead to report here I can clarify here. But frankly saying, as the person who had nominated RexxS for adminship,[16] your involvement with the RexxS is clearly not that of an uninvolved admin. First link does do not describe Ayurveda as "pseudoscience". There is a lack of any description and there is only a single passing mention of "Ayurvedic medicine" in the entire book. Anybody can agree that it is nowhere near the definition of "describe" which means "a detailed account in words of". Second link does not refer Ayurveda as "pseudoscience". RexxS claims that the wording from the source "Ayurveda and some other pseudoscience" contradicts me, but that is not exactly correct. It is common in such instances that the author is not putting the latter into the same category as the former. Some other examples are: "Trump and some other European leaders"[17] (Trump is not a European), "dinner with President Obama and some other tech bigwigs"[18] (Obama is not a "tech bigwig"), where it is similarly clear that by saying "xxxx and some other" the author isn't giving same categorical treatment to both subjects. Now since it is clear that this is just a mere disagreement over the interpretation of the source, then such a content dispute should be better solved on talk page or other WP:DRs than AE. Siddsg (talk) 02:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Sitush[edit]Seems like lawyering to me. In 10+ years here I have never seen anyone link to WP:CONTEXTMATTERS - not saying the info there is wrong or ill-advised or whatever but that sort of link is pretty typical of someone who is lawyering, drilling down to a very small part of a whole in order to make a point. Or perhaps I have just been living in a cave for the last decade? - Sitush (talk) 11:56, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Siddsg[edit]
|
DrL
[edit]| Moot: user is now indefintiely blocked for sockpuppetry. Guy (help!) 07:59, 22 July 2020 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning DrL[edit]
From remedies:
DrL is the wife of Christopher Langan, inventor and sole proponent of the "Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe", a fringe theory. DrL is a single-purpose account who has no significant history on Wikipedia other htan promoting Christopher Langan. DrL was blocked indefinitely on 2020-03-03 due to personal attacks and unblocked on 2020-07-01 on the understanding that these would not resume. Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a redirect following an AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe, which was heavily canvassed. Offsite canvassing continues, according to the evidence of thee Talk page, with vociferous support for restoring a standalone article from DrL and some other WP:SPAs. The redirect target is a short section of just over 100 words. The sources are either by or about Langan, not CTMU. There is one source which meets RS and has some discussion of CTMU on its own merits (there are also a few mere namechecks). Most sources proposed are unreliable. DrL's most recent statements at Talk are:
This assumption of bad faith and promise to continue demanding until she gets the answer she wants is disruptive, and violates the ban. Further, since mid 2007, DrL has done nothing here other than promote Chris Langan and attack those who do not accept CTMU. Indeed, for most of that time she has been inactive (https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/DrL). I advocate a full topic ban form articles connected to Langan and CTMU, broadly construed. There is enough off-wiki coordinated nonsense with this topic already. Notably, Christopher Langan himself has been able to resist any such aggression. His argumentation is prolix, but calm and polite.
Discussion concerning DrL[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by DrL[edit]I was very surprised to receive this notice. I'm merely weighing in on a talk page as I'm allowed to do (at least to the best of my understanding). When the CTMU article was deleted in 2006, there were several administrators who seemed very invested in getting it removed. When I stumbled upon this debate about the redirect and saw what I thought might have been one or two of those admins, I became concerned lest the topic of the article again be unfairly criticized as it was in 2006, when it was misclassified as "intelligent design creationism". But of course, you're right - I should assume good faith no matter how bad it might look. Your advice is appreciated. DrL (talk) 23:19, 17 July 2020 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning DrL[edit]
|
USaamo
[edit]| Topic ban from wars between India and Pakistan. EdJohnston (talk) 15:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Request concerning USaamo[edit]
Discussion concerning USaamo[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by USaamo[edit]The whole point of conflict is the edit dispute on Indo-Pakistani Air War of 1965 which the editor called original research. Why ain’t it be determined, I’ve presented sources [26], he's refuting them [27], why not someone decide on that and end this dispute once and for all. As to my conduct, I’m being dragged into all this. I didn’t mean it and is unintentional out of frustration since I’m not much experienced editor knowing just some necessary editing policies only.
I was blocked for this edit dispute over edit warring for reason that they were stonewalling my edits, my changes were being reverted one after one by four of the editors involved in edit dispute and I was reverting their reverts, so the editor went on to get me blocked even though the edit reversion was started by them and I reverted them as many times they reverted me or even less but I came into admin’s radar somehow and got blocked. Now the said editor came here with some loopholes in my conduct but in all this edit dispute why only my conduct is being scrutinized, why not theirs, WP:Stonewalling, WP:DISRUPT, WP:EDITWAR, WP:CANVAS, and may be WP:MEATPUPPET as well. USaamo (t@lk) 21:26, 4 July 2020 (UTC) (Update) Requesting administrator to allow this update, it may exceeds word limit of statement. (Continues from 1st and 2nd points of my statement...) User:Aman.kumar.goel himself falsely accused other editors of sockpuppetry at many instances. [32] [33] [34] [35] while a filing is also there against him where clerk endorsed him for sockpuppetry as well as off-wiki canvassing and meatpuppetry.[36] So he should also be tried for WP:NPA and WP:ASPERSIONS for falsely accusing other editors of sockpuppetry and also for WP:MEATPUPPET, WP:DUCK#Usage, WP:CANVAS as well as WP:EDITWAR, WP:DISRUPT, WP:Stonewalling. USaamo (t@lk) 12:07, 5 July 2020 (UTC) Update Since the case has been unarchived and admin Guerillero is accusing me of edit warring which is not true. That RfC was closed by Legobot on 10 June [37] to which the said admin just recently concluded. The RfC was about adding Pakistan's edge and victory as per sources [38] which I alleged was canvassed and meat puppetry was done to stonewall proposed changes. After my edit yesterday[39] on the basis of new and verified sources provided in a new discussion on talk[40] which was added to article following a discussion to which no further reply came from them for a week. It was reverted by User:Kautilya3 for RfC being not ended.[41] While just after that the said admin came in to conclude the RfC that the whole material be not added which is strange. It's oky to not add victory till dispute is settled but how come verified sources be stopped from adding to the article... I see the element of biasness here from him and seems to me motivated moves. Moreover an indefinitely blocked sock' s comment is still there in that RfC while it's closed and now concluded as well. [42] So I request admins here before passing any judgement do look into that edit dispute and also scrutinize the conduct of persons involved. USaamo (t@lk) 10:24, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Kautilya3[edit]I am surprised that the editor pinged me while I gave this report a pass. Now that I am here, suffice to say that the editor's disruptive behaviour continues, with comments like, "
Clearly, the editor refuses to obtain any understanding of WP:RS and is only prepared to argue on nationalistic lines. The editor also showed up at an RfC on Dhola Post with an entirely superficial comment, which can't count as anything but WP:Vote stacking. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:47, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Erik-the-red[edit]
Statement by Toddy1[edit]I have no opinion about Diffs [1] to [3]. But I think the complaint about Diff [4] above is unjust. USaamo's edit was not perfect, but sources Source [2] and Source [3] supported it. Source [1] may originally have had content that I cannot access.
-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning USaamo[edit]
|
Urgal
[edit]| Urgal is siteblocked for one year for repeated violations of their WP:ARBAP2 topic ban. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:34, 24 July 2020 |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Urgal[edit]
The following edits are all topic ban violations:
The inital topic ban notice was removed by Urgal on 30 June 2020 with the edit summary "Lol".
Discussion concerning Urgal[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Urgal[edit]Statement by Ian.thomson[edit]It looks like the pre-ban edit war at InfoWars was to claim that it's a news site. Not just a fake news site, but a news site. Now, they weren't removing the "Fake news" label, but I must admit that whenever I see a new user questioning why we call InfoWars "fake news," I might give them a single warning shot before indefinitely blocking them under WP:CIR. Oh, wait, here they are arguing that the fake news was in the past and that they shouldn't be called a fake news site. Their actions in the above report show that they won't respect the their ban, and frankly the only reason I can imagine for not indeffing them are their prolific editing combined with their history of sockpuppetry: by letting them continue to edit in other topics, we're (hopefully) reducing the risk of producing an LTA case. I'm only saying I can see that reason, not saying I agree with it. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC) Statement by MrX[edit]There is a clear pattern of flaunting the rules here, so Urgal is probably about to be indef blocked. This is probably worth looking into as well: [46] - MrX 🖋 11:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC) Noting for the record that I have filed an SPI: WP:Sockpuppet investigations/WhatsUpWorld. - MrX 🖋 13:50, 24 July 2020 (UTC) Statement by Ivanvector[edit]I saw Newslinger's revert this morning on Infowars which referenced the topic ban, and started to do an investigation of their last few weeks of edits since being banned, but I see it's here already; thanks for doing the work, Newslinger. I only got as far back as a series of boundary-pushing edits to Clint Eastwood (e.g. this edit about Eastwood's political positions, though Urgal later self-reverted). My analysis was an indef partial block from InfoWars was in order, and was on my way to their talk page to begin the process when I saw the note there referring to this discussion. Given Newslinger's evidence of multiple ongoing violations and evidently no willingness to abide by the sanction, a sitewide block is clearly in order, the only question is for how long. Taking everything here into account and including the recent abuse of multiple accounts, I suggest the answer is indefinite. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Urgal[edit]
|
Symphony Regalia
[edit]| Symphony Regalia is indefinitely topic banned from gender-related disputes, controversies, or social movements. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:34, 27 July 2020 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Symphony Regalia[edit]
This editor has provided three poor-quality sources to try to claim that reliable sources do not agree that MGTOW is a misogynist movement. I didn't even know that members of MGTOW themselves disputed that MGTOW is a misogynist movement—after all, the core belief is that women are so terrible they must be avoided completely. They have yet to provide any quotes from these sources that actually refute the descriptor, and continue to maintain the sources are somehow usable without providing any evidence the authors are "field experts" as they claim. For clarity, the sources they have produced are:
A topic ban from the subject area strikes me as appropriate, as well as a reminder that not every "book" you can find on Amazon is a reliable source. They have stopped replying to the talk page discussion (Talk:Men Going Their Own Way#Not all RS describe MGTOW as misogynistic) and have moved on to POV-pushing elsewhere in the article: just now they've removed the quotes around "female privilege" in the sentence It appears based on their talk page that this user has also been troublesome in other topic areas, including pushing for COVID-19 to be called the "Chinese virus" or "Wuhan virus".
Discussion concerning Symphony Regalia[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Symphony Regalia[edit]GorillaWarfare is directly involved and what you are witnessing is an attempt by her to weaponize sanctions against someone she holds ideological disagreements with. I haven't violated any sanctions, there is currently no ongoing conflict, and I've engaged on the talk page every step of the way. Her diff explanations are also misleading. Diff 1 was not a removal, it was me restoring the contribution of another editor who is also currently in disagreement with her. In the spirit of collaboration my edit summary also suggested using a qualifier, but this was of course left out of her account of the events. Diffs 4 and 5 are talk page edits. Diff 6 isn't related to any of the other diffs. The quotes in diff 6 were removed to remain consistent with the rest of the article, as the term is not jargon, and because they are completely redundant in a sentence that begins with A quick look at the edit history for the article will directly demonstrate the clear WP:OWNBEHAVIOR that GorillaWarfare consistently engages in. This report appears to be backlash for violating that sense of ownership. You will also notice that she is the one who requested sources that were not self-published, so I gave her two published by reliable independent publications, and stopped editing the line. Now she is attempting to improperly weaponize sanctions against me because she apparently does not personally like that one publisher has Catholic affiliations, which I did not know, and of course should not matter anyhow. I have nothing more to say and will not be engaging with any of the ad hominems from her acquaintances, or her new attempt to modify the original report to "refute" this statement. Symphony Regalia (talk) 03:43, 26 July 2020 (UTC) Statement by Jorm[edit]This is pretty open-and-shut. Symphony Regalia has been rolling deep in "I didn't hear that" territory and edit warring to delete sourced writing. A topic ban feels like the right path.--Jorm (talk) 03:09, 26 July 2020 (UTC) AlmostFrancis[edit]For what its worth their username comes from an obscure Japanese anime in which the main rebel faction is called nudist beach, for which Regalia is a member. It seems likely given their username and area of interest that they are here to push a POV and annoy everyone and not build the encyclopedia.AlmostFrancis (talk) 03:52, 26 July 2020 (UTC) @Ian.thomson:, I am content with your disagreement. With your crudity, and pedantry about anime, I suspect we would disagree about much. I see little difference between choosing a name after the character or after an article of clothing the character wears. AlmostFrancis (talk) 05:01, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Ian.thomson[edit]Since I locked the Men Going Their Own Way article, I wasn't gonna comment but @AlmostFrancis: your reasoning is... Honestly awful. Like, really, really bad. I'm saying this as someone who thinks GorillaWarfare has built a solid case that Symphony Regalia needs to be topic banned from gender-related disputes (and opened the door for a case regarding politics) and as someone who has not watched Kill la Kill. The show is not obscure (it was on Adult Swim and so pretty popular with the western anime fandom and there's still plenty of merch floating around here in Japan), and there are fans of the series on every part of the political spectrum (whether they get that the series's creators intended it to be anti-fascist or ignore that to interpret it as libertarian individualism, whether they think the message is troubled by the sexualization of its female character or that Hiroyuki Imaishi is satirizing fan service as he did in Panty & Stocking with Garterbelt, or whether they just pretend that media couldn't possibly have deeper meanings). And Symphony Regalia isn't even a character, it's an article of clothing worn by a character. And I really hate myself for being this pedantic about an anime I've never even watched right now but my God, your argument is so bad that it risks derailing the case against Symphony Regalia (possibly with the help of childless single men who masturbate to anime) with a red herring of "why does Wikipedia hate anime fans?" Your argument is ignorant and unhelpful, please strike it and do not make similar ones in the future. (The links are not meant to imply that anyone currently present is a member of the alt-right but there's no informed and good-faith argument that an alt-right editor would not want to take a particular side on this case). Ian.thomson (talk) 04:42, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Symphony Regalia[edit]
|
Kautilya3
[edit]| Erik-the-red is topic banned from all pages related to India's borders, broadly construed. They may appeal the ban after a period of not less than six months.--RegentsPark (comment) 15:17, 28 July 2020 (UTC) | ||
|---|---|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Kautilya3[edit]
I believe the WP:BULLY diffs above best demonstrates the problems with engaging in WP:DR (such as RfC) with Kautilya3, and why I am requesting WP:ACDS. At 18:17, 13 July 2020, I opened an RfC following the suggestion from a closed AE report which Kautilya3 filed against me. Subsequently,
How can RfC work with an editor who doesn't accept other survey responses as valid?
Diff Erik-the-red (talk) 20:43, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Kautilya3[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Kautilya3[edit]Thanks to Number 57 for checking the reverts made. I actually count two reverts in 24 hours, not even three. As for the allegation of "BULLY", obviously evidence is presented to admins when a case is made against an editor. Whether those allegations make sense or not is for the admins to assess. I find it hard to see how this can count as "BULLY". As to "how can the RfC work?", the answer is that an independent closer assesses the input provided by various users. Meanwhile, I would like the admins to consider if this editor is being given too much WP:ROPE. I brought a genuine 3RR violation report, for which no sanction was applied. In response to this substantive ARE report, the user was let off with a light sanction. Is this emboldening the user (and perhaps others) to try more extreme measures to take out the "opposition"? Notice also this very long ANI report on quite a related topic. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:13, 20 July 2020 (UTC) Statement by SerChevalerie[edit]This ARE looks like an extension of the content dispute that the editors are having. The diffs provided prove the same. K3 has been invaluable in India-related articles; I hardly think sanctions are necessary. As has been previously pointed out by the admins, a dispute resolution would be ideal before entertaining stricter requests such as this ARE. SerChevalerie (talk) 06:03, 21 July 2020 (UTC) Statement by USaamo[edit]I replied to User:Kautilya3's allegation against my comment which he stated in his statement in my case above, I'm posting it here again to clarify my position. "As to my comment on Dhola Post RfC, he's(Kautilya3) wrongfully alleged me and the other editor(Erik-the-red) involved. I commented in that RfC with having a background over McMahon Line since the history of India Pakistan before of 1947 was common history under British India and the said discussion is of a 1914 event which is taught to us in history. I came across this discussion while looking through different RfCs and here I commented on another I found during that[47] and I came across this as well and as I have read the case involving User:Erik-the-red below(my case) so having a background on it I went on to comment in that RfC. And my comment there is backed by sources and is not merely a comment. He is just showing up the same attitude he is showing on other side (In edit dispute with me) and tending to stonewall sourced content." An admin here didn't understood my comment in that RfC at all interestingly. Perhaps I have a very bad grip on language's syntax. I tried clarifying it for him as well in this respnose I added there. [48] Hope it clears my stance. Also I wanted to know whether a user can be questioned for his response to RfC like that or not? USaamo (t@lk) 22:01, 21 July 2020 (UTC) Statement by BirdValiant[edit]I've just popped in after seeing the RfC going on for Talk:Ayurveda, where I noticed that one of the users in that discussion, User:Siddsg has been both blocked and indefinitely topic banned on the topic of pseudoscience. I scrolled up and happened to notice that User:Kautilya3 was the subject of arbitration enforcement. This very much surprised me, because I had come to know Kautilya3 while being involved with the Indigenous Aryans RfC. I remember Kautilya3 being a level-headed voice of reason during these typically emotion-ridden debates. Looking the differences in Dhola Post, it seems to me that Kautilya3 made the right decision to revert; it seems like a case of POV pushing to me. One might as well change the map on the Arunachal Pradesh article to be a map of China and say that it's southern portion is claimed by India. These kinds of major changes require a consensus to be achieved first, which User:Erik-the-red did not achieve. I would like to point out the language in one of Erik-the-red's edit summaries: "Believe it or not, it is possible for someone other than you to write in a way that abides by WP:NPOV and WP:NOR." That sounds pretty passive-aggressive to me; not something one would expect out of a collaborative project. Also, Erik-the-red accuses Khautilya3 of "blatant hypocrisy" in the Dhola Post content dispute. Finally, I would hope that there is more discussion on Talk:Dhola Post from disinterested parties. BirdValiant (talk) 00:00, 25 July 2020 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Kautilya3[edit]
|
Mr Miles
[edit]| No action required --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:31, 7 August 2020 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Mr Miles[edit]
Discussion concerning Mr_Miles[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Mr_Miles[edit]Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Mr_Miles[edit]
|
GizzyCatBella
[edit]| Notrium and François Robere are prohibited from interacting with GizzyCatBella and vice versa. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 22:24, 9 August 2020 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning GizzyCatBella[edit]
The previous enforcement request: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive268#GizzyCatBella. I'd like to note that AFAIK GizzyCatBella has also been been warned on their talk page many times for violations without a sanction happening, including in April 2020 by El C. The many discussions on GizzyCatBella in the Arbitration Enforcement Archives are also relevant.
I'd just like to respond to the proposals of sanctioning me for raising this case: my behavior is and wasn't of a "battleground" nature, this AE case was not "malicious" or "weaponized" - it was done in good faith; I absolutely thought that GizzyCatBella was violating her TBAN with her edits. However I would like to note that, although it obviously flared up a bit now, the conflict between me and GizzyCatBella, as even Piotrus basically says, is quite small, from both sides, and I thus have an optimistic perspective on our future ability to functionally collaborate without an IBAN. I apologize for making the admins expend their time on what turned out to be non-actionable, and for my overly curt misinterpretable comment above ("fail to see what the proposed sanctions"), I assure you that neither was my intention. I hope that you can while deliberating also note that this is only my second AE case and that I am in general inexperienced in the Wikipedia ways. Notrium (talk) 23:05, 1 August 2020 (UTC) Also, I should probably say this explicitly: because the problem that led you to consider an IBAN is related to just this AE case I raised, it would be unfair and unnecessary to sanction a general IBAN that would prevent us from editing in the same topics. Notrium (talk) 23:24, 1 August 2020 (UTC) Small note: A procedural error seems to have happened regarding GizzyCatBella's TBAN: it is not listed on WP:RESTRICT. I am mentioning this because the admins here are presumably best placed to take any needed action if necessary. Notrium (talk) 00:29, 2 August 2020 (UTC) Regarding Piotrus' comment, I want to say that it seems inconsistent with his recent previous position, as he emailed me a seemingly supportive message after my first AE; but now he turns 180°, even accusing me of "Clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia" and proposing sanctioning me. Notrium (talk) 00:18, 4 August 2020 (UTC) OK, sorry for emailing you, Seraphimblade. Some questions for the admins, then: do you want me to elaborate on the background to this AE case? I wasn't asked anything explicitly, but some admins are suspicious of something, so I think maybe I should tell more. Notrium (talk) 21:29, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Discussion concerning GizzyCatBella[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by GizzyCatBella[edit]Unbelievable battleground attitude! I can't believe it!! This is a continuation of this! [63] And this report [64] already reported by Notrium earlier following my prior disagreement with that user. There is no word "Poland" or any subject related to Poland from my edits presented above. They just can't stop until they get their way. See this discussion too [65] on RexxS talk page. I'm carefully avoiding any word POLAND in WW2. Article about Roma people?! Because of what?! Because some Roma communities lived in Poland during WW2 and Poland is mentioned somewhere else in the article!? What an ill-disposed report! This is absurd. I even state it clearly in the edits summary when I'm correcting ANYTHING where there was a mention of Poland somewhere else in the article, like here [[66]] when I was repairing Slovakia section. Notrium please get it over with and move on. I have nothing to do with your latest block [67] Just move on. I can't take it anymore. Dear administrators, PLEASE. Please, remove or alter my topic ban, so this kind of malicious reports don't happen anymore. I understand what I have done that resulted in my topic ban OVER two years ago already. [68] I know that I have to be careful with references, and I'm already. VERY CAREFUL. The topic ban doesn't serve any purpose whatsoever anymore, causes me significant distress and only attracts battleground oriented editors. They file insanely bad faithed reports and use it as a weapon to get back at me for God to know what. GizzyCatBella🍁 05:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Note - Also, please note because this is VERY interesting.
All the diffs the user Notrium presented above are related to the Roma community, Germany, Soviet Union and Slovakia.
User Notrium, however, advocates for the expansion of sanctions to include - quote -
They now removed that text from his original filing [75] with an edit summary User François Robere who was a close friend of Icewhiz ,supposed to stay away from me following this discussion [79] but arrived here to comment. He also breached the interaction promise earlier here [80] and here [81] and here restoring my edit [82]. He pushed for sanctions together with Notrium here [83] on RexxS' talk page also. François Robere do you have anything to do with producing this report?GizzyCatBella🍁 14:25, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Meantime on May 28, YOU joined this discussion and on May 29 directly challenged me [92] by saying
Let's get one fact straight here -
Our agreement that is a consequence of YOU filing THIS [99] AE report against me on March 24th and states - I'll quote RexxS here - @Administrative Team - I'm not sure if this will help, but I gathered all AE cases filled upon me below. I observe striking similarities in the requests' structure and composition, but I might be biased at this point, so I will leave it for you to assess. [101] - Icewhiz April 26th, 2018 [102] - Icewhiz May 9th, 2018 [103] - Icewhiz June 24th, 2018 [104] (AE enforcement filed at admin. talk page) Icewhiz February 26, 2019 [105] - (AE enforcement filed at admin. talk page) Icewhiz May 18, 2019 Icewhiz Banned [106] François Robere block shopping on admin. talk page January 1, 2020 [107] - François Robere March 24th, 2020 François Robere pledged to disengage from GCB Notrium first ever AE filing [108] - Notrium June 26, 2020 Notrium second AE filing (current case) [109] - Notrium July 31st, 2020 - GizzyCatBella🍁 08:32, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Sorry but, this matter gives me no rest and I can’t sleep.
Here is the link to François Robere block for suggesting that I'm conducting ethnic prejudice and ethnically-motivated vandalism (anti-Semitism). [110] François Robere was also warned on other occasions for the same [111], [112],[113],[114]
I'm just trying to get to the bottom of the fact why Notrium suggested that my edit is being racially motivated at diff #3 on their first-ever filing
[115] quote -
I didn't bring other instances were the revert is not clear and those from before 2020 but only articles they never edited before, with a clear editing summary who is reverted, so there are no arguments.GizzyCatBella🍁 03:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
@Notrium - look, you're clearly inexperienced with the WP:AE board as per the conversation here [122] and your own admission in your priors statements. Maybe please consider coming forward and declare if you were guided to this board by some third party. I think honesty may only help. Thanks.GizzyCatBella🍁 13:36, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
@El_C, Seraphimblade, RexxS, Guerillero | Parlez Moi I have an idea, why instead of keeping me Topic Banned for another 4.5 months until appeal, conditionally lift the ban for 4.5 months instead and see if I run into problems in WW2 Poland related articles. In 4.5 months, I myself will arrive here with a request to review my conduct. I'll remember about it, so you don't have to. This procedure will prevent further abuse of this board and allow me additionally to prove further what I have learned from my 2-year-old ban in real-time. If the evaluation fails, the Topic Ban will be reinstated. (?) - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:57, 3 August 2020 (UTC) Statement by Piotrus[edit]Hmmmm. Something is fishy. Or at least doesn't look pretty. Do correct me if I am wrong, but Notrium has never edited Polish history articles much, nor interacted with GCB. In June they got into a minor disagreement at Talk:History_of_Poland#Human_activity_in_Poland_in_antiquity, then took care to investigate GCB's topic ban which concerns topics Notrium never edit themselves, presented well formatted Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive268#GizzyCatBella last month (their first AE report ever) and now they are filing one again (this time really scraping the barrel, the presented evidence - fixing a few typos here and there - is really weak IMHO). It is interesting that Notrium has never edited the articles he reports GCB for; he is clearly not interested in this topic area and instead is just looking for any and all technicalities to 'stick it' to someone who dared to disagree with him. This seems to me to be awfully far from WP:AGF and in turn too close to WP:NOTHERE, and given that Icewhiz is still active behind the scenes (for example he is actively harassing me in real life, which led to his recent site/SanFran-level ban), I have to wonder if he isn't sending diffs/pre-formatted AE's to some people hoping to see 'if they'll stick'. Frankly, WP:BOOMERANG for WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior would be, IMHO, worth considering here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:21, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Statement by François Robere[edit]
@Piotrus: You don't have to be close friends with someone to report them (you probably shouldn't if you are :-P). Her T-ban appeal drew comments from several editors who follow the TA but don't interact with her personally.[124] You shouldn't be surprised that other editors notice her as well. François Robere (talk) 13:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
@El C: See below.
Regarding GCB's T-ban:
There are some issues that can be raised here, but again - I'm not looking to make this messier. I doubt others will see it the same way, though. As for GCB's claims:
Later claims:
@GizzyCatBella: I filed, you got warned,[166] then you and your friends stormed my TP and RexxS's.[167] RexxS then threatened to indef block me because of two diffs (!) that ended up being wrong, and despite my relatively "clean sheet" (two blocks in >7 years), and I was forced to agree to avoid your friend's contribs list.[168] RexxS explicitly stated that he will not try to enforce an I-ban.[169] I was straight up about everything, explained exactly what I did and why, and kept my word. Meanwhile, you had your ban prolonged by two years (which had nothing to do with me),[170] then got blocked for breaking it (which again had nothing to do with me).[171] You then promised RexxS that you'll "try to avoid anything that has "Poland" in the text" for six months,[172] then ten days later you're back to editing Polish articles and following me,[173][174][175][176][177][178] and you still deny any wrongdoing. Is that accurate? François Robere (talk) 15:54, 1 August 2020 (UTC) I can keep on replying to GCB's older diffs (Ełk riots was created by Icewhiz, and GCB and others followed him there;[179] GCB shouldn't have removed Lithuania's national poet from List of Lithuanians; Prosto z mostu was actually mentioned at her AE appeal, so I'm clearly not the only one to have noticed it... etc.), but the bottom line remains that I was completely truthful and upfront about everything, and once I gave my word, I kept it. It's unfortunate that others haven't done the same. François Robere (talk) 10:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC) @El C: Why an I-ban? None of her examples hold up (see right above this message). The fact is I neither "hound" her nor harass her in any way whatsoever, while she still follows me. I kept my end of the bargain, so why would you do that? François Robere (talk) 20:16, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
@Ealdgyth's mention of "newspapers" refers to discussions like these,[180][181][182][183][184] where editors repeatedly pushed for treating dailies as RS, despite the presence of special sourcing restrictions. François Robere (talk) 00:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC) Statement by Mr Ernie[edit]I am uninvolved in this topic area, and have given all of the offered diffs posted by François Robere a close looking through. I must admit I'm perplexed to see sanctions proposed against FR, when the diffs clearly paint a much different picture to me than what the admins see. El_C in fact requested such a thorough analysis, and after looking through it I do not see any justification for a sanction against FR with a reduction to a sanction for GizzyCatBella. At the very least this is equal behavior, and that's at the VERY least. I do not have any additional input on the diffs presented by Notrium. Finally I don't think it's useful for editors to claim "Icewhiz!" for justification anymore - that was a while ago and it is time to move on. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:53, 1 August 2020 (UTC) Statement by AlmostFrancis[edit]François Robere is one of the few editors willing to spend the time to patiently push back against editors with a certain point of view, a point of view that has caused multiple arbcom preceedings. Allowing editors to be slowly picked off who disagree with that point of view would be catastrophic for Wikipedia, especially in light of a recognized holocaust experts making note of issues with POV being pushed into Polish topics.AlmostFrancis (talk) 22:59, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Ealdgyth (peripherally involved in the past)[edit]No, the topic area hasn't improved ... and frankly, it still is a morass of badly sourced stuff with plenty of POV pushing. And until the ArbCom sourcing restrictions are actually enforced, I have no great desire to edit in the area ... as long as newspapers are still considered to fit the ArbCom's sourcing restrictions, the area is never going to improve. --Ealdgyth (talk) 23:39, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning GizzyCatBella[edit]
|
